FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol

Kate Seers, Karen Cox, Nicola Crichton, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Ann Catrine Eldh, Carole A Estabrooks, Gill Harvey, Claire Hawkes, Alison Kitson, Pat Linck, Geraldine McCarthy, Brendan McCormack, Carole Mockford, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Angie Titchen, Lars Wallin

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    51 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The PromotingAction on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence,the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the useof evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, andis a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential toimprove the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.Objectives: This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make toimplementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process fortranslating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of twodifferent models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management;assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing apro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practicecommunity.Setting and sample: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for peopleaged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinenceMethods and design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and twodifferent programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome iscompliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents withincontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes areassessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailedcontextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin,observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realisticevaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages1-11
    JournalImplementation Science
    Volume7
    Issue number25
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2012

    Fingerprint

    Research
    Quality of Life
    Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Delivery of Health Care
    Alberta
    Urinary Incontinence
    Long-Term Care
    Dermatitis
    Public Policy
    Nursing Care
    Practice Guidelines
    Urinary Tract Infections
    Health Services
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Interviews
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    Incidence

    Cite this

    Seers, K., Cox, K., Crichton, N., Edwards, R. T., Eldh, A. C., Estabrooks, C. A., ... Wallin, L. (2012). FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol. Implementation Science, 7(25), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25
    Seers, Kate ; Cox, Karen ; Crichton, Nicola ; Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor ; Eldh, Ann Catrine ; Estabrooks, Carole A ; Harvey, Gill ; Hawkes, Claire ; Kitson, Alison ; Linck, Pat ; McCarthy, Geraldine ; McCormack, Brendan ; Mockford, Carole ; Rycroft-Malone, Jo ; Titchen, Angie ; Wallin, Lars. / FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol. In: Implementation Science. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 25. pp. 1-11.
    @article{ecc4d3774d5b4a12a198f6606e723570,
    title = "FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol",
    abstract = "Background: Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The PromotingAction on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence,the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the useof evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, andis a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential toimprove the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.Objectives: This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make toimplementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process fortranslating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of twodifferent models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management;assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing apro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practicecommunity.Setting and sample: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for peopleaged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinenceMethods and design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and twodifferent programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome iscompliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents withincontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes areassessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailedcontextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin,observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realisticevaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.",
    author = "Kate Seers and Karen Cox and Nicola Crichton and Edwards, {Rhiannon Tudor} and Eldh, {Ann Catrine} and Estabrooks, {Carole A} and Gill Harvey and Claire Hawkes and Alison Kitson and Pat Linck and Geraldine McCarthy and Brendan McCormack and Carole Mockford and Jo Rycroft-Malone and Angie Titchen and Lars Wallin",
    year = "2012",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1186/1748-5908-7-25",
    language = "English",
    volume = "7",
    pages = "1--11",
    journal = "Implementation Science",
    issn = "1748-5908",
    publisher = "BioMed Central",
    number = "25",

    }

    Seers, K, Cox, K, Crichton, N, Edwards, RT, Eldh, AC, Estabrooks, CA, Harvey, G, Hawkes, C, Kitson, A, Linck, P, McCarthy, G, McCormack, B, Mockford, C, Rycroft-Malone, J, Titchen, A & Wallin, L 2012, 'FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol', Implementation Science, vol. 7, no. 25, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25

    FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol. / Seers, Kate; Cox, Karen; Crichton, Nicola; Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor; Eldh, Ann Catrine; Estabrooks, Carole A; Harvey, Gill; Hawkes, Claire; Kitson, Alison; Linck, Pat; McCarthy, Geraldine; McCormack, Brendan; Mockford, Carole; Rycroft-Malone, Jo; Titchen, Angie; Wallin, Lars.

    In: Implementation Science, Vol. 7, No. 25, 03.2012, p. 1-11.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol

    AU - Seers, Kate

    AU - Cox, Karen

    AU - Crichton, Nicola

    AU - Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor

    AU - Eldh, Ann Catrine

    AU - Estabrooks, Carole A

    AU - Harvey, Gill

    AU - Hawkes, Claire

    AU - Kitson, Alison

    AU - Linck, Pat

    AU - McCarthy, Geraldine

    AU - McCormack, Brendan

    AU - Mockford, Carole

    AU - Rycroft-Malone, Jo

    AU - Titchen, Angie

    AU - Wallin, Lars

    PY - 2012/3

    Y1 - 2012/3

    N2 - Background: Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The PromotingAction on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence,the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the useof evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, andis a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential toimprove the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.Objectives: This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make toimplementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process fortranslating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of twodifferent models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management;assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing apro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practicecommunity.Setting and sample: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for peopleaged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinenceMethods and design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and twodifferent programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome iscompliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents withincontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes areassessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailedcontextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin,observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realisticevaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.

    AB - Background: Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The PromotingAction on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence,the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the useof evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, andis a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential toimprove the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.Objectives: This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make toimplementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process fortranslating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of twodifferent models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management;assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing apro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practicecommunity.Setting and sample: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for peopleaged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinenceMethods and design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and twodifferent programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome iscompliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents withincontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes areassessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailedcontextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin,observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realisticevaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.

    U2 - 10.1186/1748-5908-7-25

    DO - 10.1186/1748-5908-7-25

    M3 - Article

    VL - 7

    SP - 1

    EP - 11

    JO - Implementation Science

    T2 - Implementation Science

    JF - Implementation Science

    SN - 1748-5908

    IS - 25

    ER -

    Seers K, Cox K, Crichton N, Edwards RT, Eldh AC, Estabrooks CA et al. FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of ResearchEvidence): a study protocol. Implementation Science. 2012 Mar;7(25):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25